Tchentcheu v. Mukasey , 282 F. App'x 225 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1632
CATHERINE FLORE TCHENTCHEU,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 9, 2008 Decided: June 20, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney
General, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Shahrzad Baghai,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Catherine Flore Tchentcheu, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, seeks to petition for review the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding from
removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) authorizes
the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a) (2000). The INA defines a refugee as a person unwilling
or unable to return to her native country “because of persecution
or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000). An applicant can
establish refugee status based on past persecution in her native
country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)
(2006). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can establish
a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground.
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004).
An applicant has the burden of demonstrating her
eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006); Gandziami-
Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). A
determination regarding eligibility for asylum is affirmed if
supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a
- 2 -
whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). This
court will reverse the Board “only if the evidence presented was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s adverse
credibility finding and the record does not compel a different
result. Accordingly, we will not disturb the Board’s denial of
Tchentcheu’s applications for asylum and withholding from removal.
We also find because Tchentcheu did not establish her
identity or her opposition party membership, substantial evidence
supports the Board’s denial of her application for relief under the
CAT.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -